Gay Marriage in CA? OK!

2008-05-15 19:18:09

#51

oldgoat: Alcohol & calculus don't mix. Never drink & derive; +5|6941

What if the whole world was gay? then humanity will cease to exist unless people went to the bank an got sum.

what if the whole world was straight? then humanity will keep going unless we kill ourselves.

not taking sides yet on a forum but????

then again its not their fault theyre born with it so ?

Last edited by oldgoat (2008-05-15 19:18:53)

2008-05-15 19:25:25

#52

HurricaИe: Banned; +877|6385|Washington DC

=NHB=Shadow wrote:
If Blacks and Women can have rights why not Gays?

RELIGION HURRRRRRRR

I find it interesting that nobody notes the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment...

2008-05-15 19:35:02

#53

FallenMorgan: Member; +53|6338|Glendale, CA

oldgoat wrote:
What if the whole world was gay? then humanity will cease to exist unless people went to the bank an got sum.

what if the whole world was straight? then humanity will keep going unless we kill ourselves.

not taking sides yet on a forum but????

then again its not their fault theyre born with it so ?

Conservatives come up with the funniest arguements:

What if your mother got an abortion?

What if the whole world was gay?

I think it has to do with how they cannot think of real arguements. There is no real arguement against gay marriage that is founded in logic and not the bible.

Last edited by FallenMorgan (2008-05-15 19:35:43)

2008-05-15 19:52:18

#54

God Save the Queen: Banned; +628|6767|tropical regions of london

Stingray24 wrote:
God Save the Queen wrote:
hell, why dont we just get rid of the courts in the first place and have mob rule. majorital tyranny FTW
Hell, why don't we just ignore the vote of the people and let a vocal minority use the courts to impose their will? That's closer to tyranny.

As long as we get rid of the courts.

2008-05-15 20:14:04

#55

SenorToenails: Veritas et Scientia; +444|6554|North Tonawanda, NY

HurricaИe wrote:
I find it interesting that nobody notes the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment...

Don't confuse the issue with facts.

2008-05-15 20:21:54

#56

FallenMorgan: Member; +53|6338|Glendale, CA

God Save the Queen wrote:
Stingray24 wrote:
God Save the Queen wrote:
hell, why dont we just get rid of the courts in the first place and have mob rule. majorital tyranny FTW
Hell, why don't we just ignore the vote of the people and let a vocal minority use the courts to impose their will? That's closer to tyranny.
As long as we get rid of the courts.

Mob rule + No courts = Lynching gays, blacks, etc. In other words California becomes the antebellum South during the 1800s.

2008-05-15 20:23:32

#57

Deadmonkiefart: Floccinaucinihilipilificator; +177|7130

Definition of marriage: civil union between a man and a woman. That has been the definition of marriage since before this country ever existed. The majority of the country is against gay marriage. The government can't suddenly change the definition of such a common word as "marriage" just to appease a tiny percentage of the population. Gays are just being oversensitive. Marriage is a tradition and being gay is not traditional. So I don't see what they are wining about. Gays should get a civil union with equal rights as a marriage. It's as simple as that.

2008-05-15 20:32:31

#58

FallenMorgan: Member; +53|6338|Glendale, CA

Deadmonkiefart wrote:
Definition of marriage: civil union between a man and a woman. That has been the definition of marriage since before this country ever existed. The majority of the country is against gay marriage. The government can't suddenly change the definition of such a common word as "marriage" just to appease a tiny percentage of the population. Gays are just being oversensitive. Marriage is a tradition and being gay is not traditional. So I don't see what they are wining about. Gays should get a civil union with equal rights as a marriage. It's as simple as that.

Civil rights laws were passed to appease a tiny percentage of the population of the southern states. It's not about appeasement, it's about civil rights. The constitution allowed freedom of religion, but in 1776 most of the population was protestant, and whatnot. If it was laws to appease the majority with no reguard to civil rights, we'd be the Christian States of America.

2008-05-15 20:34:43

#59

LividBovine: The Year of the Cow!; +175|6803|MN

Deadmonkiefart wrote:
Definition of marriage: civil union between a man and a woman. That has been the definition of marriage since before this country ever existed. The majority of the country is against gay marriage. The government can't suddenly change the definition of such a common word as "marriage" just to appease a tiny percentage of the population. Gays are just being oversensitive. Marriage is a tradition and being gay is not traditional. So I don't see what they are wining about. Gays should get a civil union with equal rights as a marriage. It's as simple as that.

Bout sums it up.

FallenMorgan wrote:
There is no real arguement against gay marriage that is founded in logic and not the bible.

But I believe in the bible and I am against Gay marriages. I have a vote and a voice, I use both. So should you, oh yeah, your not old enough to vote yet. Darn.

Last edited by LividBovine (2008-05-15 20:37:27)

"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation" - Barack Obama (a freshman senator from Illinios)

2008-05-15 20:35:31

#60

God Save the Queen: Banned; +628|6767|tropical regions of london

FallenMorgan wrote:
God Save the Queen wrote:
Stingray24 wrote:

Hell, why don't we just ignore the vote of the people and let a vocal minority use the courts to impose their will? That's closer to tyranny.
As long as we get rid of the courts.
Mob rule + No courts = Lynching gays, blacks, etc. In other words California becomes the antebellum South during the 1800s.

Lynching blacks was common after the civil war, not before. quit trying to sound smart.

2008-05-15 20:46:13

#61

HurricaИe: Banned; +877|6385|Washington DC

Deadmonkiefart wrote:
Definition of marriage: civil union between a man and a woman. That has been the definition of marriage since before this country ever existed. The majority of the country is against gay marriage. The government can't suddenly change the definition of such a common word as "marriage" just to appease a tiny percentage of the population. Gays are just being oversensitive. Marriage is a tradition and being gay is not traditional. So I don't see what they are wining about. Gays should get a civil union with equal rights as a marriage. It's as simple as that.

yeah those blacks were being too damn sensitive, it was just a bit of lynching.

2008-05-15 20:52:24

#62

LividBovine: The Year of the Cow!; +175|6803|MN

HurricaИe wrote:
Deadmonkiefart wrote:
Definition of marriage: civil union between a man and a woman. That has been the definition of marriage since before this country ever existed. The majority of the country is against gay marriage. The government can't suddenly change the definition of such a common word as "marriage" just to appease a tiny percentage of the population. Gays are just being oversensitive. Marriage is a tradition and being gay is not traditional. So I don't see what they are wining about. Gays should get a civil union with equal rights as a marriage. It's as simple as that.
yeah those blacks were being too damn sensitive, it was just a bit of lynching.

Gay Marriage=Black Lynching? What are you going on about?

"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation" - Barack Obama (a freshman senator from Illinios)

2008-05-15 20:53:46

#63

HurricaИe: Banned; +877|6385|Washington DC

LividBovine wrote:
HurricaИe wrote:
Deadmonkiefart wrote:
Definition of marriage: civil union between a man and a woman. That has been the definition of marriage since before this country ever existed. The majority of the country is against gay marriage. The government can't suddenly change the definition of such a common word as "marriage" just to appease a tiny percentage of the population. Gays are just being oversensitive. Marriage is a tradition and being gay is not traditional. So I don't see what they are wining about. Gays should get a civil union with equal rights as a marriage. It's as simple as that.
yeah those blacks were being too damn sensitive, it was just a bit of lynching.
Gay Marriage=Black Lynching? What are you going on about?

K, fine, jim crow

What's the difference between not letting people do certain things because of their race and because of their sexual orientation?

2008-05-15 20:58:13

#64

FallenMorgan: Member; +53|6338|Glendale, CA

God Save the Queen wrote:
FallenMorgan wrote:
God Save the Queen wrote:

As long as we get rid of the courts.
Mob rule + No courts = Lynching gays, blacks, etc. In other words California becomes the antebellum South during the 1800s.
Lynching blacks was common after the civil war, not before. quit trying to sound smart.

Sorry I misused the term antebellum. I thought it meant after the war...

2008-05-15 20:58:58

#65

HurricaИe: Banned; +877|6385|Washington DC

FallenMorgan wrote:
God Save the Queen wrote:
FallenMorgan wrote:

Mob rule + No courts = Lynching gays, blacks, etc. In other words California becomes the antebellum South during the 1800s.
Lynching blacks was common after the civil war, not before. quit trying to sound smart.
Sorry I misused the term antebellum. I thought it meant after the war...

ante=before
bellum=conflict

2008-05-15 20:59:56

#66

LividBovine: The Year of the Cow!; +175|6803|MN

LividBovine wrote:
...I believe in the bible and I am against Gay marriages. I have a vote and a voice, I use both. So should you, oh yeah, your not old enough to vote yet. Darn.

Last edited by LividBovine (2008-05-15 21:01:29)

"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation" - Barack Obama (a freshman senator from Illinios)

2008-05-15 21:03:00

#67

nukchebi0: Пушкин, наше всё; +387|6747|New Haven, CT

Deadmonkiefart wrote:
Definition of marriage: civil union between a man and a woman. That has been the definition of marriage since before this country ever existed. The majority of the country is against gay marriage. The government can't suddenly change the definition of such a common word as "marriage" just to appease a tiny percentage of the population. Gays are just being oversensitive. Marriage is a tradition and being gay is not traditional. So I don't see what they are whining about. Gays should get a civil union with equal rights as a marriage. It's as simple as that.

Very nicely said.

2008-05-15 21:11:37

#68

CommieChipmunk: Member; +488|6993|Portland, OR, USA

LividBovine wrote:
LividBovine wrote:
...I believe in the bible and I am against Gay marriages. I have a vote and a voice, I use both. So should you, oh yeah, your not old enough to vote yet. Darn.

You believe in the bible, so I think it's safe to assume that you would very much idolize Christ, your prophet. Like just about every other prophet out there, Jesus preached about loving thy neighbor, tolerance and acceptance, 'do onto others as you would want done onto you.' (Most commonly known version in North America as the Golden Rule of Christianity). Funny how dissimilar Christians and Christ can be, and don't try to use any "Jesus would have been against gays" bullshit, because according to your book, Jesus loved all of his brothers, or children or whatever.

Them being married doesn't destroy the sanctity of marriage, and quite frankly, it doesn't hurt you one bit -- so you really have no business sticking your nose where it doesn't belong. But I suppose there always has to be a group that's discriminated upon.

Last edited by CommieChipmunk (2008-05-15 21:12:37)

2008-05-15 21:17:51

#69

LividBovine: The Year of the Cow!; +175|6803|MN

I have my beliefs and you have yours, I have a vote and will use it. I would hope you would use yours. I am not well versed on the bible and would fail at any attempt to quote from it. I will leave it at my beliefs and my vote.

"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation" - Barack Obama (a freshman senator from Illinios)

2008-05-15 21:25:19

#70

Marconius: One-eyed Wonder Mod; +368|7118|San Francisco

It's about time. It's a great step for Civil Rights, but again I think this is a step in the wrong direction. The government needs to stop recognizing a difference between Civil Unions and Marriage. The government should not be even legislating on what defines "marriage" as marriage is a religious institution. Ruling on it breaches the Establishment Clause and is unconstitutional.

The State should only recognize Civil Unions, no matter the sex of the couple. The issue of Gay Marriage is really up to the churches that give out the sacrament of marriage. It's up to the parishioners to decide if they want to extend that blessing to homosexual couples.

Due to the state of things, allowing Gay Marriage via the government is good, but ultimately the Government needs to drop the entire issue of marriage altogether.

2008-05-15 21:27:32

#71

nukchebi0: Пушкин, наше всё; +387|6747|New Haven, CT

CommieChipmunk wrote:
LividBovine wrote:
LividBovine wrote:
...I believe in the bible and I am against Gay marriages. I have a vote and a voice, I use both. So should you, oh yeah, your not old enough to vote yet. Darn.
You believe in the bible, so I think it's safe to assume that you would very much idolize Christ, your prophet. Like just about every other prophet out there, Jesus preached about loving thy neighbor, tolerance and acceptance, 'do onto others as you would want done onto you.' (Most commonly known version in North America as the Golden Rule of Christianity). Funny how dissimilar Christians and Christ can be, and don't try to use any "Jesus would have been against gays" bullshit, because according to your book, Jesus loved all of his brothers, or children or whatever.

Tolerating them and bending backwards to accommodate them are entirely different.

Them being married doesn't destroy the sanctity of marriage, and quite frankly, it doesn't hurt you one bit -- so you really have no business sticking your nose where it doesn't belong. But I suppose there always has to be a group that's discriminated upon.

But what is the definition of marriage?

2008-05-15 21:48:10

#72

Naturn: Deeds, not words.; +311|7029|Greenwood, IN

I wish both Liberals and Conservatives would both shut the fuck up. Don't we have better things to worry about right now other than gay marriage?

2008-05-15 21:50:36

#73

LividBovine: The Year of the Cow!; +175|6803|MN

Naturn wrote:
I wish both Liberals and Conservatives would both shut the fuck up. Don't we have better things to worry about right now other than gay marriage?

Not in this thread we don't.

Edit:
Lol at ad for this page (haven't seen this one yet):

https://gleasonworks.com/Bf2s/loldating.jpg

Last edited by LividBovine (2008-05-15 21:54:13)

"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation" - Barack Obama (a freshman senator from Illinios)

2008-05-15 21:52:00

#74

Naturn: Deeds, not words.; +311|7029|Greenwood, IN

LividBovine wrote:
Naturn wrote:
I wish both Liberals and Conservatives would both shut the fuck up. Don't we have better things to worry about right now other than gay marriage?
Not in this thread we don't.

Was generalizing across the board not just this thread. All I see is a constant bicker between the sides about this and that. I just want it stopped and something done about OTHER issues.

2008-05-15 21:53:05

#75

God Save the Queen: Banned; +628|6767|tropical regions of london

then create OTHER threads

BF2S Forums Gay Marriage in CA? OK!

=NHB=Shadow wrote:

oldgoat wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

God Save the Queen wrote:

HurricaИe wrote:

God Save the Queen wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

God Save the Queen wrote:

Deadmonkiefart wrote:

Deadmonkiefart wrote:

FallenMorgan wrote:

FallenMorgan wrote:

God Save the Queen wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

Deadmonkiefart wrote:

HurricaИe wrote:

Deadmonkiefart wrote:

LividBovine wrote:

HurricaИe wrote:

Deadmonkiefart wrote:

God Save the Queen wrote:

FallenMorgan wrote:

God Save the Queen wrote:

FallenMorgan wrote:

God Save the Queen wrote:

FallenMorgan wrote:

LividBovine wrote:

Deadmonkiefart wrote:

LividBovine wrote:

LividBovine wrote:

CommieChipmunk wrote:

LividBovine wrote:

LividBovine wrote:

Naturn wrote:

LividBovine wrote:

Naturn wrote:

Board footer